Timeline shows Bush McCain Warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown - YouTube

Fox News ^ | Sept. 24, 2008 | Fox news

[Sons of Union Vets]

As I understand it, overriding a presidential veto falls within constitutional procedures.

True. But in any case, a veto override was capable of cancelling Bush's veto...which is really the point.

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

Thought so. If you change your mind, let me know. Maybe we could go hunting together. Muzzleloading season starts soon. It’s a good chance to get outdoors and scout patterns even if nothing is taken. You know what they say, a bad day hunting is better than a good day at work.

[LomanBill]

[Roland Arnall was a holocaust survivor]

Baloney. The Godfather of Subprime was never anywhere near the Holocaust. 

 

His WWII experience consisted entirely of living in France, in care of the Eunuchs in whose bosom consists the vestigial remnants of the Roman Empire's fraudulent indulgence-granting state church.

 

"...who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical;"

---Thomas Jefferson

---The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom.

 

[Arnall was once quoted as saying his support for Bush stemmed from Bush's stance on Israel.]

 

The Arnall's stance for supporting ANYBODY was evidently rooted in whatever POWER and favor they could suckle from relationships bought with proceeds from their dishonest scales.

 

Best RATs and RINOs money could buy.

 

Just like their subprime counter-part in Obamaland - Penny Pritzker - whose Chicago family owned sub-prime-lending bank went belly up in 2001.

 

Penny Pritzker -- about whom Mrs. McCain's toothless lapdog mysteriously never had the cajones to utter a single whimper when ODumbo changed the focus of the debate to the unfolding economic debacle.

 

[From what we now know about ACORN, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that those lenders defined as "predators" by groups like ACORN were more the victims of ACORN looters]

Baloney.  Ameriquest, having no depositors, was not a bank.  It was not a "lender" exercising fiduciary responsibility over depositor's wealth.  It was an orginator.  Period.

 

It NEVER did anything but game and securitize the slime churned up from the bottom of the barrel. 

 

It was born a subprime originator, and it died one when Citigroup stupidly ate the whole putrid enchilada.

 

Plop Plop Fiz Fiz.

[Sons of Union Vets]

So in your world Barney Frank, even though he had less say than Pelosi does now, is somehow responsible for the Republicans failing to kill Freddie and Fannie. Because he’s a socialist?

Along with 69 other members of our U.S. Congress. If that doesn't bother you, then maybe you are not fully aware of what socialism is really all about. It is anything BUT democratic. In fact, it was Vladimir Lenin who was once quoted as saying "The goal of socialism is communism."

With regard to Barney frank's influence, Barney Frank had to have had plenty of influence before 2007 in light of the things he got away with that would have landed most other people in prison.

WHO IS BARNEY FRANK?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/who_is_barney_frank.html

Barney Frank used his influence while sitting on a committee that regulated Fannie Mae to get his lover a well paid job there

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2011/05/barney-frank-used-his-influence-while.html

[LomanBill]

[LOL - that says nothing about who created and signed Fiscal Year 2009’s budget.]

Who signed it is irrelevant.

What’s significant is the process by which the economic train was derailed by boxcars loaded full of securitized a$$paper.

But you won’t be able to see that until you extract your eyeballs from your caboose.

[FromTheSidelines]

Look, if you can’t get basic facts right, then how can you even attempt to figure out who caused the fiasco? When you’re provably wrong on the simple things - no one will believe a thing you say about the more complex issues.

That said - who wrote and signed FY2009, the year that the graph attributes to President Bush?

[Forty-Niner]

“Fiscally, Bush was profligate and inattentive. Nothing like Obama, but still...”

....but still he was a wee bit occupied with terrorist attacks and the Global War on Terror.....where was Congress???? there are three co-equal branches in Goverment.....where was the Congress? Spending doesn’t happen in a presidential vaccume now does it?

We are in for a repeat if we don’t do something about changing Congress by ridding ourselves of the entrenched “political class,” and electing a non-professional Congress responsive to We the People.

The entrenched political class????? I say throw them in Boston Harbor (and good riddence.)

[LomanBill]

Been nailed to that perch long?

You haven’t proved diddly squat - other than your desire for the sheeple to fixate their attention upon the FY2009 facade you keep to propping up to obscure the view.

The graph clearly shows the declining period extends well into W’s administration; and the FACT is that his Ambassador to the Netherlands was also, quid pro quo, The Godfather of Subprime.

Deal with it.

NO SALE.

[Forty-Niner]

“He was so distracted he failed to reign in Fannie and Freddie?”

Wasn’t that congress’s job?????

[FromTheSidelines]

So, your answer is that facts don’t matter, Bush was bad, you are right, and that an ambasssadorship to the Netherlands means that Bush fomented the entire subprime scandal.

You talked to George Noory about your delusional conspiracy? Would probably give him an hour of paranoid beliefs to feed...

[LomanBill]

That said - who wrote and signed FY2009, the year that the graph attributes to President Bush?

 

 Silly misdirecting parrot.

 

 

There aren't any ticks clearly demarking the month/year.  But the way I interpret the timelines presented, the period it attributes to W was merely the extent of his presidency, with nothing beyond January of 2009 -- so go fill your Fiscal Year straw-man with more a$$paper... it'll need it once it starts deflating sans another QE injection from the McFed.

 

 

 

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Sons of Union Vets.

[LomanBill]

[an ambasssadorship to the Netherlands means that Bush fomented the entire subprime scandal.]

No, I think W’s compassionate conservatism and distraction with the war on terror was abusively taken advantage of and gamed by pirates who put a great deal of thought, resources, and criminal effort into doing so.

Pirates who’d be in jail if this was still a Republic constrained within its originally specified purpose — to secure the inalienable rights of the governed against predatory pirates where “COMMERCE BETWEEN MASTER AND SLAVE IS DESPOTISM”.

[FromTheSidelines]

Hey - guess what? Each inflection point in the curves is a budget year! Guess where the last one ends - 2009... Of course, that’s wrongly attributed to President Bush.

Oh, he was President all right, but he didn’t write or sign that budget that was passed for FY2009. So the Bush years stop at that -$459B mark...

Now do you see it? Or is your ego and blind obedience to some sort of twisted logic all that drives you?

[LomanBill]

[Each inflection point in the curves is a budget year!]

Ok, thanks for the explanation.

[Oh, he was President all right, but he didn’t write or sign that budget that was passed for FY2009. So the Bush years stop at that -$459B mark...]

 

The system of record says otherwise:

 

“As we work to keep taxes low, we must do more to restrain spending. My Budget proposes to keep non-security discretionary spending growth below 1 percent for 2009 and then hold it at that level for the next 4 years. It also cuts spending on projects that are not achieving results—because good intentions alone do not justify a program that is not working.”

President George W. Bush

The Budget Message of the President

Fiscal Year 2009 Budget

---------------

This volume describes and provides funding levels for major discretionary and mandatory savings and reform proposals in the Fiscal Year 2009 Budget....

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2009-SAVINGS/pdf/BUDGET-2009-SAVINGS.pdf

 

Now can you admit you're wrong -- or does your character preclude you from doing so? 

 

[FromTheSidelines]

Ok, thanks for the explanation.

Good, we agree on what the numbers are...

Now can you admit you're wrong -- or does your character preclude you from doing so?

Why? I'm not wrong. The FY2009 appropriations bill was passed through the House and Senate in late February, 2009 (a good month after President Obama was sworn in), and was signed into law by President Obama on March 11th, 2009. President Bush's proposed budget was ignored by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid - they created their own budget and did not pass it until after President Bush was out of office.

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

You want me to admit I’m wrong? I’m not sure who you’re arguing with.

Just to clear up the whole Fiscal year thing,

The Fiscal year starts in October and is named after the year in which it ends. So the Fiscal year 2009 started in October 2008 and ended in September 2009. Bush was responsible for TARP (he asked for it and signed it) and Obama was responsible for the Obama Stimulus (sort of, he just signed whatever Nancy put in front of him). Both laws applied to FY09.

Bush signed a continuing resolution lasting until mid March ‘09. (My thanks to Hun for providing the link that contradicted his post!) Obama signed the budget for the rest of the year through October of 2009.

The big budget buster in ‘09 was the failure of the economy. It caused a significant loss of revenue. 710B less than the CBO and Bush had projected in 2001 and 624B less than the previous year.

Who owns FY09? Both, IMHO. Obama clearly owns FY10 and FY11.

I don’t think people are arguing about what the graph says. It is detailed enough that several arguments can (and will) be made from it. To me, what it says is that there has been an accumulation of failures that got us here. The compromise we’ve seen over and over again in Washington is more Democratic spending and more tax cuts from the Republicans. It can’t continue for much longer.

We have two to five years to fix this mess. It may be too late for a Republican president to have much of an effect. We are adding 10% a year to the privately held debt which is up to 70% of GDP now. When it gets to 90%, the debt starts to increase by itself as investors willing to finance it start to walk away and interest rates rise. When it gets to 120%, it increases geometrically and the country ends.

(”This Time is Different: A Panoramic View of Eight Centuries of
Financial Crises” A 123 page pdf! http://www.nber.org/~wbuiter/cr1.pdf)

Who knows? Maybe in 2014 Hun and I will be camping out under the stars defending our garden.

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

You’re correct. Bush signed a CR covering the first six months of FY09. Obama signed a budget for the second six months.

See my post above.

[FromTheSidelines]

Yep. And the CRs were at the FY2008 level - which was about $1 trillion lower in total deficits than FY2009. If FY2009 ended up as FY2008 funding the whole way through, then the deficit in FY2009 would have been around $400-$450 billion. High, but nowhere near what that graph implies - a full $1 trillion shift in debts.

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

This is tedious. I have the detailed numbers open in my spreadsheet right now. You can easily do your own number crunching, if you want. Here’s the link to get the raw numbers: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12187

In FY2009 congress spent $417B more than it had projected in 2001 on discretionary spending. In FY2008 they spent $339B. A $78B increase. Bush’s CR contained increases as did Obama’s. Whose CR had more? It’s 1am on a Sunday night and I’m just glad I don’t have work tomorrow.